About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
not only a lost opportunity domestically. the foreign policy of this also. the most interesting thing that reagan did early on in foreign policy was the air traffic controller strike and toughness at times at home have repercussions aboeroad. this story got lost because of the boston bombings. >> but helps new awax. you only have to send that message once or twice to have one person go back and go, he is crazy. you know what he just told me? he said he was going to destroy me. >> what the president, what president obama, for reasons not only to him and his nature, clearly does not do or cannot do is something that lyndon johnson did do and this story has been repeated too many times for it not to be apockrifal. frank church a senator from idaho opposed senator johnson on an element of vietnam policy and another senator, i forget which one, wanted a line in an appropriations bill for a dam in his state. and he was on the fence with regard to lyndon johnson's view on vietnam policy. he called the president specifically asking, i need this. kou help me get it? and the president of the un
rights foreign policy. it is not a foreign policy priorities and because it is the right thing to do. it is tied to our own security. it is tied to the possibility of prosperity and nation's living by rule of law. countries were strong human- rights prevail are countries where people do better. economy strive, rules of law are better. there are countries that lead on the world's station project stability across the regions. strong respect for human rights is not merely an indicator that the country is likely doing unleashes a country's potential. it helps to advance growth and progress. of a countrythink like burma for a minute. because of its steps towards democratic reform, a country that has been isolated for years is now making progress. has it reached for rwanda to be? no. but it is on the road. it is moving. more people are contributing to the economy and participating in the government, leading to faster growth and development. by starting to embrace universal rights the government is opening the doors to a stronger partnership with their neighborhood -- with their neighborhoo
pillar of our 21st century foreign policy. there's no disagreement about that in my country. the parliament passed last year anonymously a policy resolution which defined the icelandic objective in the arctic. so together with the other nordic countries we hope to play a constructive part and evidence of this was that few months ago one of our april servant was the first director general of the secretary of the arctic. >> several currency questions. the icelandic money is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the money? and are you considering any alternative currency for iceland ? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have all dealt with the financial crisis. i can comment on the national press club only six minutes are left and i get that question. [laughter] of the financial issues. nobody would believe that for a five years ago. without in state of affairs we could perhaps come together again and talk about how we're the financial crisis and how we dealt with a crisis in a different way from many other countries. how we did not
unwavering in her support of president reagan. just the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to sort of speak half-truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the placing of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some will tell you it was almost like moses parting the red sea. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly, the truth telling was not irrelevant. hope tonor ms. dissidents working behind the eastern bloc. domestically, they had a -- theyusly important were trying something very radical. they wanted a break with the economic policies of the past. the fact that they were not isolated, they could point to someone on the other side of the ocean in charge of this was important. that made quite a difference. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher, people who work closely to president reagan saying it made a difference. he is not on his own. there is an impressive leader in europe who shares his ideas. host: was it vice versa for her in britain? guest: it was. famously, they got along well. but there were differe
and we could concentrate solely on traditional foreign policy threats like iran and syria and the instability of the korean peninsula. of course those threats remain large but this shows we are still a country in terrorist cross hairs both from abroad and from within. >> it sounds like you think this will reshape our focus as well. >> i think it will, no question about that. but at the same time we've got to make sure that we don't single out one particular community for attack and os t tracism. >> it's very common for them to sfwring we don't care at all to we exaggerate the threat. this is a common pendulum swing. it's also a mistake. and what we've also seen, just in the last week, is most of the coverage and most of the discussion by elites on both side of the aisle has been far more measured than what you just read by representative king. >> but it was measured because we were still a country in crisis. now that it seems that the crisis, perhaps, has subsided, now the nuts will come out. >> that's true, and this is where the media plays an even bigger role. in the mon
overall policy of how is the foreign affairs budget, the state department budget would be prioritize in the entire region as opposed to just focusing on one country since they seem to be working together ever before? >> well, thank you very much, congressman meeks. i am very, very hopeful. i am planning a trip shortly to both colombia and brazil and other countries hopefully as time permits. we've had some issues, obviously, with argentina over some debt issues, repayment, so forth, which we need to work through. but, look, western hemisphere is our back yard. it's critical to us. too often countries in the western hemisphere think that the united states doesn't pay enough attention to them and on occasion it's probably been true. i think we need to reach out vigorously. we plan to. the president will be traveling to mexico very shortly. other -- i can't many countries. he will be going. i will be going, other high-level visits. we'll try to do everything possible to try to change the attitude of a number of nations where we've had obviously sort of a breach in the relationship ove
. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing, war crimes, we should do impeachment and the reality is that i think a lot of people -- and i think this is sincere. a lot of people so fed up with the iraq war, perceived as the sort of crimes of the bush administration they wanted it to end and the obama administration has sold people a bill of goods. the idea
component of his foreign policy, and obviously, this just emphasizes that. >> [inaudible question] >> the mexicoan government has expressed its interest in that agenda. in that regard, bringing president obama to mexico, what programs can we expect along the road and secretary kerry, -- >> [inaudible] >> some countries in latin american countries were on the back burner for several years. is it your express intent to reach out to the region? >> we have agreed to enlarge our agenda, and we are going to be talking about initiatives that have to do with high level engagement into our economic dialogue. we will be talking and find a mechanism to talk in terms of the vocation, research and innovation. so those issues and structures around them will be on the agenda, and the talks, initially discussed by president obama and president nieto. >> the answer is profoundly, yes, we do intend, i intend to, personally. and, in fact, i had intended to try to travel to the region next week, but because of the events this week, and because of some other things happening, i've had to postpone that
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged many of the interrogation techniques were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when they criticize another nation for engaging in torture and the unjustified same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being tortured. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and even if its opinion it relies on a very legal definition of torture but also on factual representations about how the techniques of would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policy makers rely upon it. based upon a faeroe view of the available public record we determined that an appl
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques that employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions that the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture, then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of, like waterboarding, stress and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in it his opinion it relies not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is in important context as to how the penny came about but also how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the avai
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)